HEALTH REQUIREMENTS FOR AQUACULTURE (11880/05)
Letter from Ben Bradshaw MP, Minister
for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare, Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Chairman
When the above mentioned Explanatory Memorandum
was considered by Sub Committee D on 9 November 2005, it was retained
under scrutiny pending further developments. I am writing to update
you on progress on this dossier.
The Committee may wish to be aware that during
the UK Presidency officials chaired five working groups and good
progress was made in resolving a number of key areas of concern
to Member States. I attach a letter to interested parties from
my officials issued on 26 January 2006 outlining the key outcomes
of negotiations during the UK Presidency. A further three working
groups were held during the Austrian Presidency under Finnish
Chairmanship (as part of a Presidency twinning exercise) and the
Finnish Presidency have indicated their intention to submit the
dossier for political agreement or adoption in September 2006.
Turning to the specific concerns of the Government,
we pressed hard for Gyrodactylus salaris (Gs) to be included in
the list of non-exotic diseases in Annex III of the proposal but
a majority of Member States opposed that and our fall back negotiating
position to include specific reference in the body of the draft
Directive to the importance of controlling Gs in order to safeguard
wild salmon populations. However, we succeeded in amending the
generic provisions in Article 43 of the draft proposal permitting
national provision for diseases like Gs not listed in the draft
Directive where they constitute a significant risk to wild aquatic
animals as well as aquaculture animals. Provision has also been
made in Recital 29 and Article 63 of the proposal for the continuation
of current safeguard measures for Gs and certain other diseases
granted in Commission Decision 2004/453/EC, pending the adoption
of measures under the new Directive. Moreover, Commissioner Markos
Kyprianou has, in correspondence with UK Members of the European
Parliament, declared that it is the intention of the Commission
within the framework of the draft Directive to ensure future protection
of UK rivers against Gs in line with the internationally accepted
risk mitigation currently laid down in Decision 2004/453. We have
therefore succeeded in maintaining current health guarantees and
a mechanism for their continuation.
In order to address concerns about a lack of
transparency in devolving to a Member State the facility to declare
zones and compartments within its territory disease-free, we succeeded
in writing into Article 50 of the proposal a mechanism whereby
Member States will have 60 days to consider the evidence supporting
the declaration of a disease free zone or compartment before that
declaration can take effect. If Member States have significant
concerns about the evidence, the period may be further extended
by 30 days and, in the event of continuing concerns, the matter
may be referred to arbitration under the auspices of the Commission.
If the declaration is found to be based on defective evidence,
provision has also been made to suspend it via comitology. This
procedure should enable Member States, like the UK, with high
fish health status, to ensure that movements of fish from newly
declared disease-free areas are based on robust risk mitigation
principles and requirements.
The prime objective during negotiations has
been to develop a proposal that is likely to present no greater
risk of disease introduction to the wild and farmed environment
than current controls. The new measure contains most of the necessary
risk mitigation mechanisms to help achieve this including provision
in Article 17 for preventing the spread of the listed diseases
via species of fish capable of acting as vectors for those diseases.
However, a number of areas remain to be elaborated by the secondary
legislative process and the success of the new regime in terms
of maintaining the high health status of the UK will depend on
the progress officials are able to make in negotiating robust
measures as part of that process once the Directive has been adopted.
It was noted in the EM that the cost of the
measure and its likely impact on businesses and government cannot
be assessed fully at this stage because much of the detail of
the new regime will be elaborated through secondary legislation
to be adopted by the Commission. That remains the position. However
officials involved in negotiations during this secondary phase
are under instruction to minimise cost and adverse economic impact
where it will be both practically possible and consistent with
adequate risk mitigation to prevent disease transmission.
The Committee may wish to know the outcome of
Government consultations on the draft Directive. Officials wrote
to stakeholders inviting comments on the draft Directive when
it was published in August 2005. Comments were received from a
number of interests including bodies representing environmental,
aquaculture and ornamental trade interests. A number of comments
were generally supportive but others were concerned that the new
measures could result in a lowering of fish health standards.
Discussions also took place with a range of stakeholders at meetings
of the Scottish Executive's Aquaculture Health Joint Working Group
and Defra's Committee for Aquaculture Health.
Finally, the Government remains broadly content
with the main thrust of the proposal and we are satisfied that
we have achieved as much as we could in the time allocated for
discussion on the proposals in Brussels.
10 July 2006
Annex A
NEW DIRECTIVE ON FISH AND SHELLFISH HEALTH
1. The purpose of this letter is to provide
an update on progress made during negotiations on the proposal
for a new fish and shellfish health Directive, during the UK Presidency.
As you may recall, I wrote on 25 August 2005 informing you of
the publication of the proposal (COM (2005) 362, 11880/05) and
inviting comments on it.
BACKGROUND
2. The proposal is designed to replace the
current rules concerning the animal health conditions for the
placing on the market of aquaculture animals and products in Council
Directive 91/67/EEC, and minimum Community measures for the control
of certain diseases in Council Directive 93/53/EEC and Council
Directive 95/70/EC. It maintains many of the principles laid down
in the current legislation and introduces the following:
— authorisation of aquaculture businesses;
— risk based animal health surveillance
system;
— provision for centralised electronic
recording of live fish movements within a Member State;
— provision for Member State to self
declare-disease freedom for areas of their territory; and
— two lists of diseases (exotic/non-exotic)
for EU wide control with provision for Member States to draw up
national provisions for diseases not listed that constitute a
significant risk for fish species or the environment (eg Gyrodactylus
salaris).
3. The documents also include a proposal
for amending Council Decision 90/424 on expenditure in the veterinary
field to enable Member States to access funding for controlling/eradicating
certain fish diseases via the European Fisheries Funding mechanism,
and a Commission Staff Working Document on the potential impact
of the proposals (11880/05 Add1).
PROGRESS IN
NEGOTIATIONS
4. Five Working Groups were held during
the UK presidency. The first two were dedicated to a detailed
read-through of the text and the Commission's supporting impact
assessment to improve understanding of the various changes and
new concepts. At the end of these sessions, Member States were
invited to outline their key areas of concern. The most notable
included—disease listing, risk based surveillance, traceability,
placing on the market, compartmentalisation, self-declaration
of disease-free areas, authorisation of businesses, introduction
of non-susceptible species and expenditure in the veterinary field.
5. The three remaining meetings concentrated
on finding solutions to major issues and there was consensus on
the following:
— amendment to Article 4 to
address concerns about the cost of "authorising" small
scale farmers. The change will allow Member States to "register"
rather than "authorise" such establishments engaged
in the direct supply of small quanitities of fish for human consumption;
— amendment to Article 14 (with
a consequential change to Article 8) to remove a requirement
to record all fish movements internal to Member States on the
Community's TRACES system, and provision for a legal basis to
give Member States the option of requiring movements electronically
on a national register;
— amendment to Article 15(1) no
longer to require a movement standstill where there has been increased
mortality or clinical outbreak of any disease within 31 days prior
to placing on the market. The proposal will instead require a
standstill in the case of clinical outbreak or any unresolved
increased mortality at the time of placing on the market;
— amendment to Article 50 (with
consequential changes to Articles 59 and 61) to specify the
procedure by which Member States may in future self-declare freedom
from disease for a zone or compartment so that there is sufficient
oversight of the process by the Commission and all other Member
States; and
— amendment to Annex V Part II to
clarify the process for seeking approval of compartments in the
coastal zone to overcome difficulties relating to marine strains
of certain diseases occurring in wild fish populations; and provision
for the developments of standards on the inactivation of pathogens
in water for use in disease free compartments.
6. A number of changes have been made to
the text of the draft Directive to incorporate these amendments,
a compromise proposal for Article 17 that has yet to be discussed
and numerous editorial amendments. This latest version of the
proposal (document 14117/2/05 Rev 2) may be accessed from
the following internet link along with the original version of
the proposals referred to in paragraphs 1 and 3 above:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/fish/fishfarm/info.htm
NEXT STEPS
7. Some of the key issues that remain include
the disease listing (Annex III and Article 43), the outline of
risk based animal health surveillance (Article 10 and Annex IV)
and the treatment of non-susceptible species (Article 17). All
three issues have already been discussed compromise proposals
are being considered.
8. Working Groups will continue during the
Austrian Presidency under Finnish Chairmanship (as part of a Presidency
twining-exercise). At least three further Working Groups are scheduled
during February and March and there is likely to be pressure for
political agreement on the dossier by the summer.
Annex B
LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTED ON FISH HEALTH
DIRECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS
| Anglers Conservation Association
| Isle of Man Fish Processors Association |
| Angling Foundation | John West Foods Ltd
|
| Angling Trade Association | Joint Nature Conservation Committee
|
| Animal Transportation Association | Lacors
|
| Association of London Government | Landauer Seafoods Ltd
|
| Association of Port Health Authorities |
Leatherhead Food Ra |
| Association of Salmon Fishery Boards | Local Government Association
|
| Association of Sea Fisheries Committees |
London Port Health Authority |
| Atlantic Salmon Trust | Manning Impex Ltd
|
| Barton & Hart | Marr Foods Ltd
|
| British Association of Canned Food Importers and
| National Angling Alliance |
| Distibutors/British Imports and Distributors
| National Association of British Market Authorities
|
| Association | National Association of Fisheries and Angling
|
| British Frozen Food Federation | Consultatives
|
| British Marine Finfish Association (BMFA) |
National Association of Specialist Anglers |
| British Ports Association | National Consumer Council
|
| British Ports Authority | National Farmers Union
|
| British Retail Consortium | National Federation of Anglers
|
| British Trout Association | National Federation of Anglers, Fisheries and
|
| British Trout Farmers Re-Stocking Association
| Conservation |
| British Veterinary Association | National Federation of Consumer Groups
|
| British Waterways | National Federation of Fish Fryers Ltd
|
| Burnham Oyster | National Federation of Fishermen Organisation
|
| Calshot Oyster Fishermen Ltd | National Federation of Fishmongers
|
| Carp Society | National Federation of Inland Wholesale Fish
|
| Caviar House Ltd | Merchants
|
| C-Export-Ltd | National Federation of Sea Anglers
|
| Chartered Institute of Environmental Health
| New England Seafood |
| Officers | Northern Ireland Fish Processors and Exporters
|
| Coarse Fish Farmers and Traders Association
| Association |
| (CFFTA) | OATA—Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association
|
| Cold Storage and Distibution Federation |
Pet Care Trust |
| Commercial Coarse Fisheries Association |
Prepared Fish Products Association |
| Consumer's Association | Professional Koi Dealers Association
|
| Conway Mussel Fishermen's Association | Ray Seafoods Ltd
|
| Country Land and Business Association | SACN
|
| Crown Estates Office | Salmon and Trout Association
|
| CWS (Trade Association) | Sea Fish Industry Authority (SFIA)
|
| English Carp Heritage Organisation | Seachill Ltd
|
| English Nature | Seafood Processors Association Ltd
|
| European Anglers Alliance | Severn Fisheries Consultative Council
|
| FACT (Fisheries and Angling Conservation Trust
| Shellfish Association of Great Britain |
| Ltd) | South West Rivers Association
|
| Federation of British Aquarist Societies |
South West Wales Angling Federation |
| Federation of British Ports | Specialist Anglers' Alliance
|
| Federation of British Wholesale Fish Merchants'
| Specialist Anglers' Association |
| Association | The Carp Society
|
| Fish Producers Organisation | UK Association of Frozen Food Producers
|
| Fish Veterinary Society | UK Fish Merchants and Processors Association
|
| Fishmonger's Company | Water Companies Association
|
| Food and Drink Federation | Welsh Development Agency
|
| Halal Food Authority | Welsh Salmon and Trout Angling Association
|
| Holmes Frozen Seafoods Specialist | Wye Salmon Fishery Owners Association Gram Ltd
|
| Independent Food Retailers' Confederation |
|
| Institute of Fisheries Management |
|
| Institute of Freshwater Ecology |
|
| |
Letter from the Chairman to Ben Bradshaw MP
Thank you for your letter reporting on the progress of negotiations
on a new Directive on the animal health conditions under which
aquaculture animals and products may be placed on the market.
Your officials kindly submitted a supplementary note setting out
the current state of consultation with Stakeholders.
Your letter suggests that you have made progress towards
securing the objectives which your Department set out in its Explanatory
Memorandum last autumn, though it does appear to have been something
of an uphill process.
The supplementary note provided by your Department records
that there is a general acceptance among Stakeholders that the
negotiating process has probably been taken about as far is realistically
possible. On this basis, and noting that the Finnish Presidency
proposes to submit a revised Directive, incorporating the compromises
you have negotiated, for agreement in September, we are content
to release this proposal from scrutiny.
20 July 2006
| 
